Technically, as pertains to transparent tape, Scotch® is a brand name now owned by 3M, so I don't know that this counts. 3M also owns Scotchgard® and Scotchprint®, so I don't think you can count these, either.

^^Don't forget Butterscotch. Though Scotch Pine is actually known as Scots Fir everywhere else but America and 'scotch' in Hopscotch is an old English word meaning scratch. And the Scotch Collie? Well, it's an American breed descended from the Great Britain breed known as a Farm Collie. I doubt it was named by a Scot, but I could be wrong.

Regardless as to how many words and products we can come up with that has the word 'Scotch' in it, "Scots-Irish" is the [i preferred[/i] usage among those of Scottish ancestry today as the word 'Scotch' would be considered a pejorative.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 02:23:10 AM by Jibrail Almuhajir »

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

Well, since this seems to be of such great interest Scotch, Scottish, and Scots are all proper English, though some are prefered over others depending on the context. Here's the OED discussion of the matter:

Quote

Scotch, a. and n., Also Scot’sh.[Contracted var. of Scottish.The three forms of the adj., Scotch, Scottish, Scots, are still current, with some difference in use, which, however, is somewhat unsettled. Down to the middle of the 16th c. the only form used in southern English was Scottish; but in the dialect of Scotland (and in that of the north of England in the 14th and 15th c.) the form was Scottis (cf. Inglis = English), subsequently contracted to Scots. So far as our quotations show, the contraction of Scottish into Scotch is not recorded before 1570 (in the compound Scotchman), though the colloquial pronunciation which it represents may well be much older; instances of Scotch cap, Scotch jig occur in 1591­99, but the adj. did not become common in literature until the second half of the 17th c. From that time until the 19th c. Scotch has been the prevailing form in England, though Scottish has always been in use as a more formal synonym. In Scotland, the authors who wrote in dialect (down to Ramsay and Fergusson early in the 18th c.) used Scots, while those who anglicized adopted the form Scottish. But before the end of the 18th c. Scotch had been adopted into the northern vernacular; it is used regularly by Burns, and subsequently by Scott; still later, it appears even in official language in the title of the ‘Scotch Education Office’. Since the mid 19th c. there has been in Scotland a growing tendency to discard this form altogether, Scottish, or less frequently Scots, being substituted. At the beginning of the 20th c., while in England Scotch was the ordinary colloquial word, the literary usage prefered Scottish in applications relating to the nation or the country at large or its institutions or characteristics. Thus it was usual to speak of ‘Scottish literature’, ‘Scottish history’, ‘the Scottish character’, ‘a Scottish lawyer’, ‘the Scottish border’. On the other hand, it would have sounded affected to say ‘a Scottish girl’, ‘a Scottish gardener.’ Although ‘the Scottish dialect’ is now the usual designation, it is seldom that Scottish is used as a n. instead of Scotch. Recent usage favours Scots in ‘Scots law’, and it is now almost universal in historical references to money, as ‘a pound Scots’.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman’s supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such as ‘Scotch mist’, ‘Scotch whisky’) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage (1965)).]

Well, if the Prince is flirting with Orthodoxy, he will have to give up more than most do. Legally, in order to wear the crown, he must be an Anglican; if he renounces the state religion, he renounces his birthright.

Forgive me please if somebody has already said this but that is not entirely accurate.

British law forbids the Monarch from being a Roman Catholic but otherwise the Monarch is free to change the state religion as was done so many times in the past especially prior to the time when the Monarch was forbidden to be a Roman Catholic.

As such, the future King is free to change his own faith and the state religion to any faith he pleases so long as it is not Roman Catholic Christianity. The Monarch may be a Jew, a Muslim, a Sikh, a Hindu or even an Orthodox Christian if this should so please.

Are you aware there is a British Orthodox Church?

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

British law forbids the Monarch from being a Roman Catholic but otherwise the Monarch is free to change the state religion

This is not accurate. The British Law which regulates the Succession of the British Throne is the Act of Settlement 1700. While it is true that under this law the Monarch must not be Roman Catholic or married to one, he or she is also required to be in Communion with the Church of England.The Act says:"That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn [sic] in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established"Source: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1565208

« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 05:08:40 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

ozgeorge, alright thanks for that.So in other words as the Monarch is the head of the Church of England the Monarch simply has to enter communion with it and then command it to do whatever he wishes because he is its head.By the way, the word "joyn" is an older spelling of "join" so it's not actually incorrect. Also, if you look in the 1611 you will find the word "ioynt" which means "joint" (in St. James I think).

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

British law forbids the Monarch from being a Roman Catholic but otherwise the Monarch is free to change the state religion as was done so many times in the past especially prior to the time when the Monarch was forbidden to be a Roman Catholic.

OzGeorge has given the correction re the law, but would you please explain what you mean by the above? When did any English King or Queen "change the state religion" "many times"?

Quote

Are you aware there is a British Orthodox Church?

Yes, but it is afaik a fairly recent organization. It is also related to the Coptic Churches rather then the EO.

Ebor

« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 04:44:20 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

But does religion really matter to British Royalty? Or even to the people anymore? Back in the day, you had to support your king and the nobles that supported him, or be found a traitor. Or you were a commoner with no say in the matter. Nowadays, no one in the Royal Palace is holding any political clout, and the noble class is nothing more than a tradition. Why would it matter when the people don't even attend the C of E in great numbers any more? Last I checked, you had to pay to get into Canterbury Cathedral because it can't support itself by the number of tithing parishoners.

But does religion really matter to British Royalty? Or even to the people anymore? Back in the day, you had to support your king and the nobles that supported him, or be found a traitor. Or you were a commoner with no say in the matter. Nowadays, no one in the Royal Palace is holding any political clout, and the noble class is nothing more than a tradition. Why would it matter when the people don't even attend the C of E in great numbers any more? Last I checked, you had to pay to get into Canterbury Cathedral because it can't support itself by the number of tithing parishoners.

One does not have to pay to attend services at Canterbury Cathedral. It is people who are sightseeing/tourists who are asked to pay. It is due to a huge many centuries old cathedral needing a lot of help in the maintenance department. There is a drive on to try and raise 50 million pounds to repair and refurbish things such as the windows and the roof.

I remember that in the 1970s the Queen exercised her sovereign power through her Governor General in Australia and removed Goff Whitlam as Prime Minister of Australia. It gave the Aussies quite a shock to find she could do that!

Last I checked, you had to pay to get into Canterbury Cathedral because it can't support itself by the number of tithing parishoners.

Many of the well known tourist churches in Russia charge admission. Every monastery that I visited also charged admission. Then in the churches that don't charge admission there is a commercial bonanza going on in the narathax. When the protestants who were part of my group pointed out the tale of the money changers, there really wasn't anything I could say.

Many of the well known tourist churches in Russia charge admission. Every monastery that I visited also charged admission. Then in the churches that don't charge admission there is a commercial bonanza going on in the narathax. When the protestants who were part of my group pointed out the tale of the money changers, there really wasn't anything I could say.

Too bad you didn't know about James River Assembly of God- complete with Starbucks and giftshop!

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

One does not have to pay to attend services at Canterbury Cathedral. It is people who are sightseeing/tourists who are asked to pay. It is due to a huge many centuries old cathedral needing a lot of help in the maintenance department. There is a drive on to try and raise 50 million pounds to repair and refurbish things such as the windows and the roof.

I stand corrected. But if that's the case, why not ask Parliment to come up with the money for it? It is, after all, a national treasure as well as a religious one.

Quote

I would also suggest that religion matters to members of the royal family and nobility on a personal level rather then on a public or political one.

Perhaps your right. Never meant to infer that it didn't. But the question I was asking is do the people really care? to mean something to British Royalty is one thing, but I think a better phrased question would be "Would it be considered a scandal by the British People if one of their kings/queens was of another religious persuasion than Anglican?" I remember Charles II, though Head of the Anglican Church was himself a Roman Catholic, and recieved last rites on his Death bed. He kept the peace, if memory serves correct, between his official and religious duties.

I stand corrected. But if that's the case, why not ask Parliment to come up with the money for it? It is, after all, a national treasure as well as a religious one.

I don't know what the Cathedral Chapter has done regarding asking the government for money for repairs. But 50 million pounds is a lot of money and not found under every bush.

Quote

Perhaps your right. Never meant to infer that it didn't. But the question I was asking is do the people really care? to mean something to British Royalty is one thing, but I think a better phrased question would be "Would it be considered a scandal by the British People if one of their kings/queens was of another religious persuasion than Anglican?"

I think that it would matter to some of the British populace. It would go against custom and Tradition for one thing. I can think of other possiblities.

Quote

I remember Charles II, though Head of the Anglican Church was himself a Roman Catholic, and recieved last rites on his Death bed. He kept the peace, if memory serves correct, between his official and religious duties.

According to both the official British government site on the royal family and the biography of Charles II by Ronald Hutton which I don't have a copy of to hand unfortunately to give you a precise quote, it was on his deathbed that Charles became RC and there is some question as to whether he was conscious or really committed to it.

and Charles II: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland by Ronald Hutton. (the same scholar who has written about pagan religions in ancient britain).

He was not RC during his years of rule. And it was the succession of his brother, James, who had converted to RC that lead to the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, James' removal from the throne, the acension of William and Mary and after them Queen Anne etc etc.

Quote

Forgive me if I have offended.

I need to work on my writing if I'm giving the impression that I'm offended when I offer a counter idea! I"m very sorry to give you that idea. I'm not offended at all. I try very hard to *not* take offense with postings and other peoples' ideas and writing.

Thinking differently is not the same as being offended.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I need to work on my writing if I'm giving the impression that I'm offended when I offer a counter idea! I"m very sorry to give you that idea. I'm not offended at all. I try very hard to *not* take offense with postings and other peoples' ideas and writing

.

Not at all. It's my writing style that I tend to be carefull of. Pride, even if unintended, is one of my worst sins.

Too bad you didn't know about James River Assembly of God- complete with Starbucks and giftshop!

Or Willow Creek. (I'd say what I call it, but it might be against forum rules). Mc+

My ex wife started going there (from my divorce lawyer, it seems that's typical). I found out because the boys started refering to their mother's church as "the church where we don't pray."

Some time after this, my older son asked if his friend Ben (a follower of Rome) had icons. When I said yes, that others had icons, not just us, but some don't, like grandma's (my mother, Evangelical Lutheran). He then brought up that "mama's church doesn't have icons. Or even a cross" and then asked why. "Because they think it makes people sad," I replied (the founder of WC said that polls showed people didn't like crosses, and someone said "the cross is a downer.").

My son thought for a moment, then shook his head and said, "Tsk! They call that a church. it's not a church, it's a mall."

Last year, they decided that because Christmas was on a Sunday, they wouldn't have services. My 7 year old's response? "That's dumb."

I joked that perhaps this year they'd cancel Easter services, because it falls on a Sunday this year .

My sons told me that they did have Easter services, and it was all dark. "Why?" I asked. "Because it's not really a church. It's more a place where we sit and watch people" was the reply.

And I'd like to ask those televagelists (all protestant, that I've seen) who hath appointed them God's IRS and collector of tithes?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Actually, the 1710 Act of Settlement does not say that the British Monarch must be Anglican.I believe it says that they must not be a Roman Catholic or married to one and must defend the Anglican Church. Technically, an Orthodox Christian can be the British Monarch.

Perhaps now we see the sour grapes from which Lub's whine is pressed?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The title of the British Monarch is "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church" but that doesn't mean that they have to be Anglican. In fact, the first to ascend to the British Throne after the Act of Settlement was King George I who was not Anglican but Lutheran, thus starting the Hanoverian Line which ended with Queen Victoria. Our own Orthodox St. Elizabeth the Grand Duchess, was herself a member of the Hanoverian Line and was Lutheran before her conversion to Orthodoxy.

In present day Anglicanism, who CAN'T be Anglican (oh, yeah, those under Rome).

Charles ascends the throne, appoints an WRO for Archbishop of Canteberry and the time for reformin' will start rolling in.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'd rather die on the barricade proclaiming Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité than to live as a subject of a monarch. You sorely disappoint, GiC (where's that scotch-irish in you?).

yeah, the Jacobins were sooo much better than the ancien regime.

And of course the Bolsheviks established democracy after getting rid of that tyrannical czar.

And the Islamic Republic ushered in prosperity and happiness when it exiled the shah.....

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Actually, in Great Britain, "Scotch" is understood to mean "whiskey that's made in Scotland" unless otherwise specified (indeed, whiskey CANNOT be labeled as Scotch unless it was made and bottled in Scotland). And in Scottish society, polite or otherwise, a person from Scotland is known as a "Scotsman" or simply a "Scot" as well as "Scottish", depending on who is speaking and hearing, as it were. I have this on direct authority from several Scotsman from Scotland as well as a Scots-Irishman from Ireland. And as a Scots-Irish American myself, I've studied quite a bit on the subject. As for a non-person, I have no idea what they're called as I've yet to meet one.

Well, since this seems to be of such great interest Scotch, Scottish, and Scots are all proper English, though some are prefered over others depending on the context. Here's the OED discussion of the matter:

Of course. Let the English define who or what a Scot is.

« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 04:39:17 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I've been to Willow Creek. "Mall" is a good term. I was impressed at the time, but knew I could never go to a church so big. I'd get lost among all those people! Amazing how, among all the things I noticed about that church (and wrote about in e-mails to friends), I didn't notice the lack of prayer or a cross. I'm sure I'd notice it now.

Or Willow Creek. (I'd say what I call it, but it might be against forum rules). Mc+

My ex wife started going there (from my divorce lawyer, it seems that's typical). I found out because the boys started refering to their mother's church as "the church where we don't pray."

Some time after this, my older son asked if his friend Ben (a follower of Rome) had icons. When I said yes, that others had icons, not just us, but some don't, like grandma's (my mother, Evangelical Lutheran). He then brought up that "mama's church doesn't have icons. Or even a cross" and then asked why. "Because they think it makes people sad," I replied (the founder of WC said that polls showed people didn't like crosses, and someone said "the cross is a downer.").

My son thought for a moment, then shook his head and said, "Tsk! They call that a church. it's not a church, it's a mall."

Last year, they decided that because Christmas was on a Sunday, they wouldn't have services. My 7 year old's response? "That's dumb."

I joked that perhaps this year they'd cancel Easter services, because it falls on a Sunday this year .

My sons told me that they did have Easter services, and it was all dark. "Why?" I asked. "Because it's not really a church. It's more a place where we sit and watch people" was the reply.

And I'd like to ask those televagelists (all protestant, that I've seen) who hath appointed them God's IRS and collector of tithes?

Logged

Author of "Tojet" (fantasy) and "The Lighthouse" (Gothic), info available at my website URL.